O.K., I looked around and observed the trees starting to grow leaves; a harbor seal swimming up the Charles River following the herring; a hawk soaring over head; the bushes rustling in the wind; dogs chasing squirrels; in Boston Common a seagull eating some garbage; the down pouring rain washing the gutters clean; and at night the full 'Flower' moon flanked by a bright Jupiter & Mercury with the constellation Orion waning below the Boston skyline being slowly replaced by the summer constellations. So what's human nature?

O.K., I looked around and observed the trees starting to grow leaves; a harbor seal swimming up the Charles River following the herring; a hawk soaring over head; the bushes rustling in the wind; dogs chasing squirrels; in Boston Common a seagull eating some garbage; the down pouring rain washing the gutters clean; and at night the full 'Flower' moon flanked by a bright Jupiter & Mercury with the constellation Orion waning below the Boston skyline being slowly replaced by the summer constellations. So what's human nature?

To recognize beginnings. To recognize movement toward goals. To recognize lively movements. To recognize consumption prolongs life. To recognize natural movements and consequences that benefit. To recognize things beyond ones grasp and do so as patterns that allude to the eternal.

To recognize beginnings. To recognize movement toward goals. To recognize lively movements. To recognize consumption prolongs life. To recognize natural movements and consequences that benefit. To recognize things beyond ones grasp and do so as patterns that allude to the eternal.

'Recognition' - excellent. That is a cognitive function.

So human nature rests on thinking. The mind is not just an abstraction as the Marxists would have us believe - that humans are mere automatons.

To recognize beginnings. To recognize movement toward goals. To recognize lively movements. To recognize consumption prolongs life. To recognize natural movements and consequences that benefit. To recognize things beyond ones grasp and do so as patterns that allude to the eternal.

'Recognition' - excellent. That is a cognitive function.

So human nature rests on thinking. The mind is not just an abstraction as the Marxists would have us believe - that humans are mere automatons.

I think maybe it's a bit of both. I believe our view of reality is not reality at all, but merely our perception of it. Reality is subjective to the observer. Inevitably however, what you see, hear, and feel taking place around you will effect your thoughts and in some way create your personal perspective of your/our world reality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRkDicwjRQs

I won't say I agree with everything in this short video, but it does pose some interesting theories. If we as human beings did not exist in our conscious state as we do, would reality in the universe be as it is now, or does it only exist the way it does because we are able to consciously perceive it. Is our conscious view of reality actually real, or merely an illusion created by our own minds?

"All matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration. We are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves."~ Bill Hicks~

Edited by Adept? - May/03/2016 at 10:00am

"It is humanity that creates god, and men think that god has made them in his image, because they make him in theirs."

I think maybe it's a bit of both. I believe our view of reality is not reality at all, but merely our perception of it. Reality is subjective to the observer. Inevitably however, what you see, hear, and feel taking place around you will effect your thoughts and in some way create your personal perspective of your/our world reality.

2"Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind."

Also, your choice of videos is good. I have seen 'The Illusion of Reality' before. But it is a subject that has been bandied about by hard core physicists since the 1927 Copenhagen Conference on quantum mechanics with the Bohr/Einstein debates.

In 1927 Neils Bohr told Albert Einstein that 'atoms are not things' - they are wavelengths, i.e. frequencies. Now professional physicist use the term 'wavelength' instead of the high school level 'atom'.

That video was good, but a misunderstanding of the subatomic world with its relation to the atomic world is the substance of new age spirituality or cults.

Nanotechnology is based on the manipulation of molecules, i.e two or more atoms/wave lengths joined together (matter). Molecules are measured in nanometers.The subatomic level is measured in Fermi's. This is the nether world of frequencies and vibration found in quantum mechanics and discussed in that video: The Illusion of Reality.

Anything on the Fermi level is ephemeral and cannot, as yet, be manipulated. That manipulation must be done on the Nano meter level.

Reality as an illusion is accepted in Philosophy. Not that reality is fake but 'temporary' relative to our life span/perception. Death may not be real, but Entropy - the Second Law of Thermodynamics - happens. You and all matter have finite life spans and will eventually wind down and stop: cease to exist. That is a change that might not be death, but you will cease to exist because of Entropy - which gives each body of matter a finite time to exist (and that is the illusion talked about by philosophers, physicists, theologians, and possibly Masons?).

Human nature refers to the distinguishing characteristics—including ways of thinking, feeling, and acting—which humans tend to have naturally, independently of the influence of culture. The questions of what these characteristics are, how fixed they are, and what causes them are amongst the oldest and most important questions in philosophy and science. These questions have particularly important implications in ethics,politics, and theology. This is partly because human nature can be regarded as both a source of norms of conduct or ways of life, as well as presenting obstacles or constraints on living a good life. The complex implications of such questions are also dealt with in art and literature, while the multiple branches of the humanities together form an important domain of inquiry into human nature and into the question of what it is to be human.

Bamo! wikipedia! LOL! wish I'd thought of that earlier. End of discussion.

I wish it were as simple as that. 'Wikipedia' is not definitive. 'Wiki' is good for pop culture and solving barroom arguments and for a 'general' place to start one's research. But it is a specious source of information not taken seriously by the Historian (along with encyclopedias) and, according to Historiography, unworthy of citation.

Vague and nebulous definitions from anonymous and questionable public sources do not an end of discussion make.

So, Adept2 you possibly provided an outline of an individual's nature, but not human nature.

Your quote from a previous answer above was spot on.

So was is human nature? Coach seems to be combining human two attributes: purpose and curiosity. What is your definition of human nature?

I am unfamiliar with any psychologist or Cultural Anthropologist espousing an 'apocalyptic' view of human nature, and you might have come across something unique.

"Waiting for the end of the world" psyche, if it exists, might explain the rise of religion or of certain religions.

Nice answer.

You can't be serious... Ok, here is a link to many examples of apocalyptic philosophies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypticism You will please take notice that they are mostly religious philosophies and theories. Fortunately for us, religion as a whole, is on a steady decline, as it has been for many years.

Edited by Adept? - May/12/2016 at 8:01am

"It is humanity that creates god, and men think that god has made them in his image, because they make him in theirs."

Thanks for that link. Yet I am aware that Apocalypticism has been frequently discussed amongst theologians and philosophers, since time immemorial.

Please note that I specifically mentioned psychology/psychiatry and Cultural Anthropology: these two disciplines make a specialty of scientifically analyzing 'human nature'. As scientific as possible that is.

Adept? wrote:

You will please take notice that they are mostly religious philosophies and theories.

Yes, exactly. Good for you. Philosophy & theology don't really specialize in 'human nature'. I think you called it yourself.

Adept? wrote:

Fortunately for us, religion as a whole, is on a steady decline, as it has been for many years.

Yes, religion has been on the decline for several decades. The reason is 'secular humanism' (God without religion). It seems science and education and constant food supply reduces the need for religion with a mild belief in God.

I learned about secular humanism in 1980 in my Philosophy course on Existentialism. People can still be decent, moral, law abiding, and follow the Golden Rule without religion, and that is the basis of Secular Humanism. It is not atheism, because God is still believed in.

BUT religion still serves a purpose for some people, and you can't take that away from them.

People can still be decent, moral, law abiding, and follow the Golden Rule without religion, and that is the basis of Secular Humanism. It is not atheism, because God is still believed in.

BUT religion still serves a purpose for some people, and you can't take that away from them.

EXACTLY! You don't even need "still" in the statement.

No need to explain secular humanism to me, thank you. I understand it very well. I would go no further than the belief of cold Deism. (the belief that a supreme source could be present, however unlikely, but not one that meddles in the affairs of life on this planet, or any other.)

Indeed, religion serves a purpose. That purpose is evil. In the natural world, good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. If you want to make good people do evil things, it just takes a little religion. That's not to say that non-religious people don't do evil things... of course they do, but looking at the history of the world, there has been more violence and bloodshed because of religion, than any other cause. Just read the bible... objectively read it, don't interpret it your own way, read the words that are on the page. Read what it actually says. There are plenty of examples throughout history, but one need look no further than the events of World war 2, and the persecution, and slaughter of the Jewish people by catholic fascists, and the continued persecution by the catholic church all the way up to the 1960's. Not to mention the events of September 11th 2001, and the war that followed, and is still taking place to this day, with no sign of an end in sight. My point is... otherwise good people, that would never otherwise do so, will commit awful act of violence and atrocities when they believe that they have divine permission, and "god" is on their side. It's bronze age thinking, and its bad for the whole of humanity.

To take it one step further, people of the same basic beliefs can't even leave each other alone. First with the catholics vs the protestant, and then it breaks down even further to universalist vs congregationalist, and methodist vs baptist, and so on and so on... it's a bunch of silly nonsense is all it is... It's telling someone that they are playing with their imaginary friend wrong, and that you know how to do it better...<span style="line-height: 16.8px;">but it gets people killed.</span>

As far as "taking it away from them" How could I, or anyone else do such a thing? It is impossible for me to take away anyone's personal beliefs. All I would ask is that they start paying their taxes, and stop with the evangelism, and the door to door visits attempting to spread their personal beliefs to others. If they sincerely believe in whatever they're preaching, then why are they not satisfied with their own beliefs? Why do they need to attempt to make everyone else believe it too? Religion makes some extraordinary claims without providing even ordinary evidence to support their claims. I maintain that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to back up those claims. Blind faith is the voluntary suspension of your critical faculties. It is to take that which we do not understand, and fill it in with "god did it" rather than working to understand, and further human education and understanding of the natural world. Let us not forget that it was the religious community that persecuted, captured, tortured and killed men of science for their experiments, and their claims, because they went against the teachings of the church. Only to find out later that their claims were true, and could be proven to be so over and over again.

I could go on and on, but I think I've made my point clear.

P.S. teaching children fairy tales from religion before they reach the age of reason and critical thinking should be considered a form of child abuse. it is a direct assault on an unformed mind unable to think rationally. a mind that still believes in such nonsensical stories as Santa Claus the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.

Edited by Adept? - May/12/2016 at 5:59pm

"It is humanity that creates god, and men think that god has made them in his image, because they make him in theirs."

I would go no further than the belief of cold Deism. (the belief that a supreme source could be present, however unlikely, but not one that meddles in the affairs of life on this planet, or any other.)

That's interesting. Because Deism is a religion.

Secular humanism has God without the religion, but not Deism.

The belief in a cosmological God, as opposed to a personal God, is the basis of Deism, yet Deism is still a religion. (Christianity believes in a personal God).

The Jeffersonian Bible takes a Deistic and Unitarian view towards God as Thomas Jefferson rewrote the New Testament with Christ as a man (without the miracles or Jesus as divine).

Just to reiterate (to demonstrate I also understand) that Deism is the belief that God exists, created man and the universe, and has left the scene, leaving man to his own devices. God still exists, but he is very far away in another dimension or something. So a Deist is not an atheist. That validates Deism as a belief system (religion).

Deism: "The belief that God has created the universe but remains apart from it and permits his creation to administer itself through natural laws. Deism thus rejects the supernatural aspects of religion, such as belief in revelation in the Bible, and stresses the importance of ethical conduct."

Secular humanism: "The philosophy or life stance of secular humanism (alternatively known by some adherents as Humanism, specifically with a capital H to distinguish it from other forms of humanism) embraces human reason, ethics, and philosophical naturalism while specifically rejecting religious dogma, supernaturalism, pseudoscience, and superstition as the bases of morality and decision making.[1][2][3][4]

Secular humanism posits that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or a god. It does not, however, assume that humans are either inherently evil or innately good, nor does it present humans as being superior to nature. Rather, the humanist life stance emphasizes the unique responsibility facing humanity and the ethical consequences of human decisions. Fundamental to the concept of secular humanism is the strongly held viewpoint that ideology—be it religious or political—must be thoroughly examined by each individual and not simply accepted or rejected on faith. Along with this, an essential part of secular humanism is a continually adapting search for truth, primarily through science and philosophy."

Secular humanists therefore do not necessarily believe in God at all. In fact I think you will find that most are anti-theist, or at the very least agnostic.

I said that I would go no further than the beliefs of cold deism. I did not say that I am one. I do however disagree with your assertion that it is a religion. A belief, and ideology for sure, but a religion...? Certainly not. I've seen Christian churches, Jewish synagogues, Muslim mosques, Jehovah's witness halls, Mormon temples, Hindu temples, Buddhist temples...but never in my 32 years have I ever seen a Deist church or holy house. To label deism a religion is to do it a great disservice. It is by definition above...expressly NOT a religion. "Deism thus rejects the supernatural aspects of religion, such as belief in revelation in the Bible, and stresses the importance of ethical conduct."

We've strayed off topic once again, so in the interest of the topic, I'll say this. Human nature is to question. To question our very existence, and the possible, and more importantly provable origin of it.

"It is humanity that creates god, and men think that god has made them in his image, because they make him in theirs."

"Man, says St. Thomas Aquinas [1225 - 1274], is naturally a social and political animal. By giving to human beings a nature which requires the co-operation of other human beings for its welfare, God ordained man for society, and thus it is His will that princes should govern with a view to the public welfare."

So is it human nature to be gregarious?

P.S. It was said that St. Thomas Aquinas was very influenced by Moses Maimonides(aka RamBam).

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum